Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.Pinto
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Udesinh Jivatsinh Parmar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Pinto, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Special) Judge, Mahesana at Visnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 on 16.05.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-
2.1 On 14-01-2012, the complainant - Nareshbhai Mohanbhai Parmar (Chamar) went to the shop of the accused to buy a kite and asked the accused for the price of a kite. The accused No. 1 told him that one kite cost Rs.5/-
An appellate court may review acquittals but must respect the trial court's findings if deemed reasonable and should maintain the presumption of innocence for the accused.
The court upheld the presumption of innocence, affirming that a reasonable doubt in prosecution evidence justifies acquittal, and appellate review should respect trial court findings unless perverse.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount; the appellate court must confirm that the trial court's decision was based on reasonable evidence before interfering.
The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, stating that acquittals should not be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is unreasonable.
An appellate court must defer to a trial court's acquittal when the trial's basis is reasonable, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.
An appellate court respects trial court's acquittal unless the findings are unreasonable; presumption of innocence remains strong post-acquittal.
An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is unreasonable or illegal, maintaining the presumption of innocence unless proved otherwise.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence, not overturning a trial court's reasonable judgment based on lack of evidence and contradictions.
In criminal appeals against acquittals, the presumption of innocence prevails and the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants upholding the acquittal.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and that conflicting witness testimonies do not establish guilt beyond ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
